By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ckmlb said:
Louie said:
cklmb: Would you go to a 45 year old lady and tell her she´s not a real reader because she reads shakespeare while you like to read Lord of the Rings?

Describing videogames as art is still far away. We are not nearly at a point where we can consider them art. Art means not visuals, art means opening peoples eyes. It means philosophy, (dis-)harmony and thoughts.

Ico might be a pretty game but it´s clearly no art. There are no really deepfull thoughts in it.

The problem we gamers have, is we often don´t even know what art is. We think if there is a game with pretty visuals it is art. That´s plainfull wrong. Art is more than just what you see, because what you see is not always what you get.

Listen: there is a game with awesome visuals and great gameplay, and you say this is a real game.

Then there is a game which helps to cure Alzheimer´s disease. There is this picture of a little boy nearly unable to move, but he is playing Wii Sports and he´s having fun.

And I ask you: Which is the real game?




Edit: Have to make a thread about this... videogames could be so much more than they currently are. And some of us want to stop it. And WE call the others conservative...

Have you played Ico? It's not for the pretty looks that I think it's art.

Also: did I say Wii Sports is not a game? and what does it have to do with the little boy enjoying it or not. It's a matter of definitions.

Anyway Nice debate and I'm off. Stop considering Brain Age art and stop telling me Nintendo is actually taking us closer to art in games.


How about you stop telling me otherwise? Because the Playstation audience did a god awful job of supporting the games you apparently think are "art." There's no better evidence than that.



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">